Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike D.
Agree on Baines, and the Morris selection almost felt like a "FU" to anyone who uses modern analytics (you know, in our mom's basements with our stained t-shirts).
I don't know enough about Manley to comment, although generally I think owners shouldn't be in the HOF.
To me, Sutter is borderline but not that awful. He's got 24.0 WAR on BBR. That's 26th on their list of relievers, but at least a dozen guys ahead of him on the list started a lot of games, so really he's probably top 15 for pure relievers.
Looking at relievers ahead of him on the list, I see a lot of guys who aren't in the Hall that could/should be - Wagner, Nathan, maybe Rodriguez, plus guys I'd consider borderline like Quizenberry. I also see a handful of guys who were relievers who I don't think of Hall of Famers, like Kent Tekulve.
So, the number of relievers who were pure relievers, had 300 career saves, and a WAR higher than Sutter isn't a long list, and I don't find them offensive as Hall of Famers.
So, maybe Sutter IS the borderline/floor. He's certainly a borderline candidate, but making him the floor doesn't seem to cause major issues for me.
|
My issue with Sutter is that he represented a huge lowering of the floor. The hall will water down with time, inevitably, but when it does it should be a gradual lowering, electing the guys who just missed the previous standard (it's impossible for a hall not to do this, you elect the absolute elites the first few years and then the standard has to lower or the hall ceases). I think a big factor in highlighting terrible picks is the context of the pick, and how much the pick lowered the existing standard below just electing the best guy at that position who isn't in, which I would call the always reasonable and inevitable lowering.
Relievers in the Hall when Sutter was elected:
1985 - Hoyt Wilhelm
1992 - Fingers
2004 - Eckersley
And... That's it.
Wilhelm:
Innings: 2,254
Years: 21
Saves: 228
ERA+: 147
Fingers:
Innings: 1,701
Years: 17
Saves: 341
ERA+: 120
WAR: 25.6
Eck:
Innings: 3,285
Years: 24
Saves: 390
ERA+: 116
WAR: 62.1
Sutter:
Innings: 1,042
Years: 12
Saves: 300
ERA+: 136
WAR: 24
Wilhelm and Eck are clearly above the others. Wilhelm's saves are low, but era context eliminates that concern. Eck is greatly aided by actually being a decent full time pitcher for years before relieving (which he was elected for). Lower ERA, but he played literally three times as much as Sutter. Sutter has a good ERA, but little else. Fingers was a poor pick, elected for being on a great team with few HOF players at all, his personality and mustache (has any other player had their physical appearance appear to boost their ranking so much?) his ERA is low, he did play 70% more than Sutter which counts for a lot. Showing up produces value.
Sutter seems less egregious looking at the list today, but they skipped Smith, they skipped Gossage, they skipped Quisinberry (who still isn't in and shouldn't be, but I think the record shows was better than Sutter), they skipped Guidry who has a better ERA and double the WAR of Sutter, they skipped so many of his direct contemporaries at his position that were better. In 2006, Sutter was a an egregious lowering of the standard skipping over many better players at his position that played at the same time. Now that Gossage and Smith are in and Quisenberry is very close to Sutter, it looks more like Guidry has a good case than that Sutter is egregious. But at the time, I think it was a horrible pick.
My personal unpopular opinion, separate from who makes the Hall's general standard, is that electing pitchers who barely pitch and don't even reach 2,000 innings is something of a joke. To merit induction one must be truly dominating. Wilhelm and Rivera are about the only ones I would vote for.